It's awful because it judges people to be dangerous based on a small number of bad individuals. If we're talking statistical justifications here, it would make far more sense to just ban Muslim men, or even men in general - but that would also be awful. And yes, it's difficult to distinguish Islamists from Muslims - but that's partly because well-meaning people like you refuse to make a distinction. This is not an easy conversation to have - there's a lot of ideology on all sides, and plenty of room for insult to be taken. But it is one we must have; we can't defeat Islamism with guns or laws alone.
It's ridiculous for a number of reasons. One, existing fences do next to nothing; two, what works for Israel and their much, much smaller border is unlikely to work for the US-Mexico border. This is both because the reasons for crossing are different - there's too much money and opportunity in border crossings - and because Israel has a much higher population density (making it harder to slip in unnoticed) and a much smaller border to cover.
Ah, so legal immigrants only have to not send money back home, which is a major motivator for many of them to work in America, in order to avoid having their money stolen from them. Got it. That's totally reasonable. (Sarcasm). I could support seizing some fraction of remittance payments from illegal immigrants if and only if that is proven in a court of law. Not a second before that.
Some parts of economics are unscientific, true. But when you have large, nonpartisan agreement, and actual empirical proof, then it's likely that Trump - and Sanders - are just abusing their populist tendencies. And yes, it's certainly easier to make things in other countries without environmental regulations. But it's their prerogative to make regulations as they see fit, just as it's their prerogative to help their companies if they so wish - it's not like America is entirely innocent there either.
Yes, Obama's policies have killed lots of innocent people. That doesn't mean we should double down on them and vow to kill even more innocents. I am arguing that it's morally wrong to intentionally target innocents. You're arguing that it might be effective, if we target the right ones. Maybe. I'm saying even if it is effective, we shouldn't do it.
I dislike the "give serious consideration" to funding yet more research in areas that have been thoroughly debunked and are harmful to free expression, yes.
Or I could vote third party. I don't have to vote for one of those choices, and if I want to "dodge" it by voting my conscience, well, I have every goddamn right to do that.
Which Trump quotes would those be? As of my comment you replied to, I hadn't seen any direct quotes from him. There are no "Trump quotes in question". It's also hilarious that an AC is accusing me of being a Russian troll for Trump, when my comment history clearly shows that I don't like him. And, seeing as you insulted my intelligence, it's even funnier you didn't think to check that. It's deliciously ironic on several levels.
Yes, things. The examples you cited are things he actually did say - you'll notice I criticized him quite thoroughly in this comment earlier. I'm not a Trump supporter.
Now, before I write the rest of this, let me point out this comment I made earlier. I know full well that people, especially the media, lie about Trump and what he says a lot. They do misrepresent what he says. My dislike of him is - as far as I know - not based on those lies.
Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful. That's listed on his website, so I hope you find that an acceptable source. It actually helps ISIS by giving them extra recruiting material - they love seeing blanket anti-Muslim statements, it gets them fighters and support. We can and should reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims, as well as without claiming it has nothing to do with Islam - Maajid Nawaz has an excellent article here.
His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is notsupportedbymost economists. He has no coherent economic worldview. He, for some reason, thinks a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing (see previous link to his website). On this page he claims he can "Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards." How, exactly, he is going to change China's environmental standards is left to the reader. His plan to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% is potentially bad; it depends on how that's implemented.
And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea. Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income. That combined with the fact that a wall is unlikely to meaningfully impact illegal immigration make it a really bad idea.
Oh, and how could we forget that he wants to kill the families of terrorists. Killing someone just because they're related to someone else is never okay, especially if you intentionally make a policy out of it.
He wants to put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIS. America does not need another ground war, especially one that is so politically risky.
That's fair. I base my dislike of him partly on what he actually says - speeches, etc. and partly from the positions he takes on his website. But I agree that my dislike for him decreased when I started looking just at what he says, not at what people say about him.
If the POTUS had unlimited power, I'd say Trump would be way, way worse for the US than Hillary would be. However, given how much Congress dislikes Trump, I don't know how much real damage he could actually do. Definitely a fair amount, at the very least in terms of international reputation and diplomacy, but in terms of day to day life for most Americans? I'm not sure. He's certainly not "infinitely worse", because of the limited power he would actually have.
I have to agree - I dislike Trump on both a personal and ideological level, but so much of what is said about him is bafflingly untrue. And that just makes his supporters more rabid, because now they have evidence that what he's saying - the media is a collusion, they're covering things up, he's an outsider who will change things - is true. And the more that, in their heads, he's right about one thing, the more likely they think he is to be right about other things.
He gets more support from independents that way too; they don't like him to start with, but if they find out that they've been lied to, the urge to cast a protest vote becomes stronger, and the desire to support the establishment candidate dwindles.
Our entire political spectrum basically occupies the space between the center and the far right by world standards.
This is false. America's political spectrum is center to far-right by European standards, but on an actual worldwide scale, it's not that far from center. At worst, by world standards, it's center-left to right. Basic incomes, getting rid of corporations, those are both extreme left views. Those aren't moderate left in the slightest.
there's no evidence the Russian government had anything to do with it. There's only circumstantial evidence the attacks even came from Russian soil.
So there's no evidence, and there's circumstantial evidence. Whatever that means.
Well, it's pretty simple - there is some evidence that someone(s) in Russia did it, but there's no evidence that - if that's even true - that person or group was working for the Russian government. Assuming it did come from Russia, it could be a private organization or hacker that did it.
The United States spends the largest amount on NATO only because it has unilaterally made it its own prerogative to spend more than half its budget on defense
Well of course the US unilaterally sets its own budget priorities. Who else would? Also, it spends more than half the *discretionary* budget on its military, not the whole budget. It's a much smaller percentage of the whole budget.
It definitely happens more often in some states though. I rarely had that problem driving in OH or IN; I've had it happen quite frequently in NJ and parts of NY.
Your justification of your context is weak. You specifically said *any* of the social media; that includes 3rd party experiences.
3rd party mods relevant to Twitter, yes. They change the way Twitter works for people, including changing the harassment people get on there. It's relevant to the story. I didn't say the world was wider; I said "nobody" has a wider meaning that you overlooked. I didn't complain that you mentioned other sites. I'm just not interested in talking about them right now. That's not cognitive dissonance.
It's impossible in the "default" application, but it's not a problem nobody has solved. The solution isn't optimal, certainly, but there is a solution. It is baffling that Twitter hasn't even tried to install filters like that though; it shouldn't be that hard.
My criticism is relating to the original Kickstarter promise, which only talked about full-length videos. Her random short ones do not fulfill the original promise.
I'm aware of mens rea. I'm saying that in most places, you wouldn't be held equally responsible for a murder just because you gave someone a gun and thought they would do it. Unless you ordered them or paid them to, you'd be charged with a lesser crime.
She retweeted her abusers multiple times - drawing attention to them just like Milo did to her. She directly and explicitly encouraged abuse; he did not, in this case.
You could argue that because Milo has done it before, his ban should be permanent, I understand that argument. But Leslie should have been forced to take those tweets down at the very least, if you want to claim even enforcement of the ToS.
In which jurisdictions? You would hold partial responsibility, but full joint responsibility seems like too much. Moreover, giving someone something that can be used to harm is very different from posting an image that might convince people to harm. The action of giving someone a gun is far more direct than posting an image.
I don't think it counts as encouragement. He knew what would probably happen, because he knows his fanbase, but I don't think you should ban people for what their followers do unless they're explicitly encouraging them. Moreover, Leslie Jones actually did explicitly encourage her followers to harass someone, and she didn't get banned. She also retweeted a lot of her abuse, likely in the hopes that her followers would attack those people.
If you're going to ban one of them, I think - under any interpretation of the "no encouraging harassment" rule - you'd have to ban both.
Their application of rules isn't consistent. Randi Harper is a serial abuser, and Leslie Jones directly told her followers to "get her" (about someone who was sending her abuse). Both of those people should have been banned under Twitter's ToS for pretty much the same reasons Milo was banned.
She only left Twitter temporarily, and handled getting trolled really poorly. Like, it's her account and she can respond however she wants to to abuse, sure. But retweeting the people sending you nasty stuff - giving them a bigger audience and more attention - is exactly the wrong way to deal with trolls. All they want is attention, and she was giving them tons of it.
Given her success rate at making videos (that were supposed to be released what, two years ago?), while still starting up new projects and accepting money from people, yeah, that's kind of a con. She got a whole lot of money to make videos, but then didn't make nearly as many as she said she would. Your quip "Perish the thought that a woman might get paid for the work she does." doesn't apply; she got paid for work she didn't do.
How much did he actually encourage his followers - who are often rabid - versus just posting something and letting them do the rest? I've seen a lot of extremely rude tweets he made, with faked screenshots, but I haven't seen any where he explicitly told his followers to go harass her. Of course, if he did that, and there are archived versions out there, I'd be interested in seeing those.
Twitter already makes it pretty easy to avoid the trolls though. If you protect your account, only people you approve can see what you post. Moreover, some services allow you to create filters for your TL - purge anything with the phrase "Crooked Hillary" or "SJW", for instance. You're correct about YouTube and Facebook, but this article is about Twitter.
Slashdot Mirror
It's awful because it judges people to be dangerous based on a small number of bad individuals. If we're talking statistical justifications here, it would make far more sense to just ban Muslim men, or even men in general - but that would also be awful. And yes, it's difficult to distinguish Islamists from Muslims - but that's partly because well-meaning people like you refuse to make a distinction. This is not an easy conversation to have - there's a lot of ideology on all sides, and plenty of room for insult to be taken. But it is one we must have; we can't defeat Islamism with guns or laws alone.
It's ridiculous for a number of reasons. One, existing fences do next to nothing; two, what works for Israel and their much, much smaller border is unlikely to work for the US-Mexico border. This is both because the reasons for crossing are different - there's too much money and opportunity in border crossings - and because Israel has a much higher population density (making it harder to slip in unnoticed) and a much smaller border to cover.
Ah, so legal immigrants only have to not send money back home, which is a major motivator for many of them to work in America, in order to avoid having their money stolen from them. Got it. That's totally reasonable. (Sarcasm). I could support seizing some fraction of remittance payments from illegal immigrants if and only if that is proven in a court of law. Not a second before that.
Some parts of economics are unscientific, true. But when you have large, nonpartisan agreement, and actual empirical proof, then it's likely that Trump - and Sanders - are just abusing their populist tendencies. And yes, it's certainly easier to make things in other countries without environmental regulations. But it's their prerogative to make regulations as they see fit, just as it's their prerogative to help their companies if they so wish - it's not like America is entirely innocent there either.
Yes, Obama's policies have killed lots of innocent people. That doesn't mean we should double down on them and vow to kill even more innocents. I am arguing that it's morally wrong to intentionally target innocents. You're arguing that it might be effective, if we target the right ones. Maybe. I'm saying even if it is effective, we shouldn't do it.
I dislike the "give serious consideration" to funding yet more research in areas that have been thoroughly debunked and are harmful to free expression, yes.
Or I could vote third party. I don't have to vote for one of those choices, and if I want to "dodge" it by voting my conscience, well, I have every goddamn right to do that.
Which Trump quotes would those be? As of my comment you replied to, I hadn't seen any direct quotes from him. There are no "Trump quotes in question". It's also hilarious that an AC is accusing me of being a Russian troll for Trump, when my comment history clearly shows that I don't like him. And, seeing as you insulted my intelligence, it's even funnier you didn't think to check that. It's deliciously ironic on several levels.
Yes, things. The examples you cited are things he actually did say - you'll notice I criticized him quite thoroughly in this comment earlier. I'm not a Trump supporter.
Now, before I write the rest of this, let me point out this comment I made earlier. I know full well that people, especially the media, lie about Trump and what he says a lot. They do misrepresent what he says. My dislike of him is - as far as I know - not based on those lies.
Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful. That's listed on his website, so I hope you find that an acceptable source. It actually helps ISIS by giving them extra recruiting material - they love seeing blanket anti-Muslim statements, it gets them fighters and support. We can and should reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims, as well as without claiming it has nothing to do with Islam - Maajid Nawaz has an excellent article here.
His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists. He has no coherent economic worldview. He, for some reason, thinks a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing (see previous link to his website). On this page he claims he can "Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards." How, exactly, he is going to change China's environmental standards is left to the reader. His plan to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% is potentially bad; it depends on how that's implemented.
Not something I find "particularly disagreeable", but merely baffling - "Crime— Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. More than 2,000 have been shot in Chicago since January of this year alone. Donald Trump is the law and order candidate in this Presidential race." (under Section 5, titled "Other Reforms") - how does he plan on reforming "crime", in general?
And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea. Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income. That combined with the fact that a wall is unlikely to meaningfully impact illegal immigration make it a really bad idea.
Oh, and how could we forget that he wants to kill the families of terrorists. Killing someone just because they're related to someone else is never okay, especially if you intentionally make a policy out of it.
He wants to put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIS. America does not need another ground war, especially one that is so politically risky.
He also pledged to crack down on internet porn. Now,
That's fair. I base my dislike of him partly on what he actually says - speeches, etc. and partly from the positions he takes on his website. But I agree that my dislike for him decreased when I started looking just at what he says, not at what people say about him.
If the POTUS had unlimited power, I'd say Trump would be way, way worse for the US than Hillary would be. However, given how much Congress dislikes Trump, I don't know how much real damage he could actually do. Definitely a fair amount, at the very least in terms of international reputation and diplomacy, but in terms of day to day life for most Americans? I'm not sure. He's certainly not "infinitely worse", because of the limited power he would actually have.
I have to agree - I dislike Trump on both a personal and ideological level, but so much of what is said about him is bafflingly untrue. And that just makes his supporters more rabid, because now they have evidence that what he's saying - the media is a collusion, they're covering things up, he's an outsider who will change things - is true. And the more that, in their heads, he's right about one thing, the more likely they think he is to be right about other things.
He gets more support from independents that way too; they don't like him to start with, but if they find out that they've been lied to, the urge to cast a protest vote becomes stronger, and the desire to support the establishment candidate dwindles.
Our entire political spectrum basically occupies the space between the center and the far right by world standards.
This is false. America's political spectrum is center to far-right by European standards, but on an actual worldwide scale, it's not that far from center. At worst, by world standards, it's center-left to right. Basic incomes, getting rid of corporations, those are both extreme left views. Those aren't moderate left in the slightest.
Watching the two of them fight on Twitter is simultaneously entertaining and sad.
there's no evidence the Russian government had anything to do with it. There's only circumstantial evidence the attacks even came from Russian soil.
So there's no evidence, and there's circumstantial evidence. Whatever that means.
Well, it's pretty simple - there is some evidence that someone(s) in Russia did it, but there's no evidence that - if that's even true - that person or group was working for the Russian government. Assuming it did come from Russia, it could be a private organization or hacker that did it.
The United States spends the largest amount on NATO only because it has unilaterally made it its own prerogative to spend more than half its budget on defense
Well of course the US unilaterally sets its own budget priorities. Who else would? Also, it spends more than half the *discretionary* budget on its military, not the whole budget. It's a much smaller percentage of the whole budget.
Glenn Greenwald is highly trustworthy
Is he really? He may be for some things, but let's not forget that the term Greenwalding exists for a reason.
It definitely happens more often in some states though. I rarely had that problem driving in OH or IN; I've had it happen quite frequently in NJ and parts of NY.
Your justification of your context is weak. You specifically said *any* of the social media; that includes 3rd party experiences.
3rd party mods relevant to Twitter, yes. They change the way Twitter works for people, including changing the harassment people get on there. It's relevant to the story. I didn't say the world was wider; I said "nobody" has a wider meaning that you overlooked. I didn't complain that you mentioned other sites. I'm just not interested in talking about them right now. That's not cognitive dissonance.
If you mean "none of Twitter, YouTube, Facebook", then you should say that, rather than "nobody", because "nobody" has a broader meaning.
It's impossible in the "default" application, but it's not a problem nobody has solved. The solution isn't optimal, certainly, but there is a solution. It is baffling that Twitter hasn't even tried to install filters like that though; it shouldn't be that hard.
My criticism is relating to the original Kickstarter promise, which only talked about full-length videos. Her random short ones do not fulfill the original promise.
I'm aware of mens rea. I'm saying that in most places, you wouldn't be held equally responsible for a murder just because you gave someone a gun and thought they would do it. Unless you ordered them or paid them to, you'd be charged with a lesser crime.
She retweeted her abusers multiple times - drawing attention to them just like Milo did to her. She directly and explicitly encouraged abuse; he did not, in this case.
You could argue that because Milo has done it before, his ban should be permanent, I understand that argument. But Leslie should have been forced to take those tweets down at the very least, if you want to claim even enforcement of the ToS.
In which jurisdictions? You would hold partial responsibility, but full joint responsibility seems like too much. Moreover, giving someone something that can be used to harm is very different from posting an image that might convince people to harm. The action of giving someone a gun is far more direct than posting an image.
I don't think it counts as encouragement. He knew what would probably happen, because he knows his fanbase, but I don't think you should ban people for what their followers do unless they're explicitly encouraging them. Moreover, Leslie Jones actually did explicitly encourage her followers to harass someone, and she didn't get banned. She also retweeted a lot of her abuse, likely in the hopes that her followers would attack those people.
If you're going to ban one of them, I think - under any interpretation of the "no encouraging harassment" rule - you'd have to ban both.
Their application of rules isn't consistent. Randi Harper is a serial abuser, and Leslie Jones directly told her followers to "get her" (about someone who was sending her abuse). Both of those people should have been banned under Twitter's ToS for pretty much the same reasons Milo was banned.
She only left Twitter temporarily, and handled getting trolled really poorly. Like, it's her account and she can respond however she wants to to abuse, sure. But retweeting the people sending you nasty stuff - giving them a bigger audience and more attention - is exactly the wrong way to deal with trolls. All they want is attention, and she was giving them tons of it.
Given her success rate at making videos (that were supposed to be released what, two years ago?), while still starting up new projects and accepting money from people, yeah, that's kind of a con. She got a whole lot of money to make videos, but then didn't make nearly as many as she said she would. Your quip "Perish the thought that a woman might get paid for the work she does." doesn't apply; she got paid for work she didn't do.
How much did he actually encourage his followers - who are often rabid - versus just posting something and letting them do the rest? I've seen a lot of extremely rude tweets he made, with faked screenshots, but I haven't seen any where he explicitly told his followers to go harass her. Of course, if he did that, and there are archived versions out there, I'd be interested in seeing those.
Twitter already makes it pretty easy to avoid the trolls though. If you protect your account, only people you approve can see what you post. Moreover, some services allow you to create filters for your TL - purge anything with the phrase "Crooked Hillary" or "SJW", for instance. You're correct about YouTube and Facebook, but this article is about Twitter.